You nailed it. There were a few that did warn what would happen. But we continued to hear the Iraqis 'wanted' democracy. The US media inundated the public with pictures of purple finger after purple finger in what amounted to nothing much more than a sham of an election. Well that is after the excuse of WMDs fell apart.
What will eventually come from Iraq (if it stays in one piece) is a theocracy that will match some of the more ardent theocracies in the region
And now to top it all off, the esteemed William F Buckley is thrown under the bus because he dares to disagree with new 'conservatism'
Those were not "sham" elections based on independent observers, including the UN. Over 8 million Iraqis participated under the threat of life and death violence. I suggest you read the Text of Joint Resolution On Iraq Passed By The United States Congress on October 10 and 11, 2002 to see why we invaded Iraq. It was much more than WMD.
What will eventually come from Iraq (if it stays in one piece) is a theocracy that will match some of the more ardent theocracies in the region
Pure conjecture on your part and ill-informed at that. There is only one "ardent" theocracy in the region and that is Iran.
Wow. Why do you call their election a sham? Those people risked death (what have any of us ever risked to vote?), had a higher turnout than we have in recent memory, and you, from the comfort of your computer's internet connection, blithely call it a "sham".
Why?
What will eventually come from Iraq (if it stays in one piece) is a theocracy that will match some of the more ardent theocracies in the region
I think you're wrong, but we shall see.
And now to top it all off, the esteemed William F Buckley is thrown under the bus because he dares to disagree with new 'conservatism'
What the hell does "thrown under the bus" mean? He wrote an article, and I and others disagree with the contents of that article, and we're saying so. That's not ok? Is this man infallible? For crying out loud.